New Delhi: In a significant ruling on disability rights and public employment, the Supreme Court held last week that setting an upper limit on the percentage of disability for recruitment is unconstitutional.
The top court directed the Himachal Pradesh government to appoint a lawyer who was denied the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) for having a disability percentage higher than 60 percent.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in an 11 March judgment, ruled that “the percentage of disability, by itself, cannot be treated as determinative of a candidate’s capability or suitability for public employment”.
The case concerned Prabhu Kumar, a practicing advocate since 2015, who suffers from a 90 percent permanent locomotor disability due to the disarticulation of his left shoulder.
Despite successfully clearing the selection process for ADA posts in Himachal Pradesh, Kumar was denied appointment because his disability exceeded the 60 percent upper limit prescribed in the recruitment advertisement.
“In such circumstances,” the court said, “the fixation of an upper cap… is not only unjustified and arbitrary, but also runs in clear contravention of the constitutional and statutory mandate.”
Also Read: What’s missing in govt’s plan to secure ‘accessibility’ for persons with disabilities
No rational basis
Striking down the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (HPPSC) decision, the court found that the 60 percent cap had no scientific or rational basis.
“We are at a loss to comprehend” the rationale behind such a limit, the bench observed, particularly for a role like an ADA, which primarily requires “mental alacrity, legal acumen and analytical ability”.
The court emphasised that there was no evidence of any expert assessment undertaken by the state before imposing the ceiling. In the absence of any “intelligible differentia”, the restriction was held to be arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees of equality.
RPwD Act sets a floor, not a ceiling
A key portion of the ruling was its interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court clarified that the law creates a threshold for inclusion by defining the term “benchmark disability” as at least 40 percent, but does not permit the state to impose an upper limit that excludes candidates with higher degrees of disability.
By introducing a 60 percent cap, the commission had effectively “rewritten” the statutory framework, the court held, undermining the very objective of the legislation: ensuring full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in public life.
The judgment further underlined that the act places a positive obligation on the state to ensure equal opportunity and provide reasonable accommodation, rather than exclude candidates “merely on account of their physical condition”.
Journey from rejection to selection
The dispute dates back to a May 2018 advertisement issued by the HPPSC for 24 ADA posts, of which two were reserved for persons with disabilities. While the notification required a minimum of 40 percent disability, it also imposed a maximum limit of 60 percent in one limb.
Kumar applied, submitted his disability and experience certificates, and was allowed to sit for the exam in September 2018. He cleared the written test and was shortlisted under the “physically handicapped (general)” category.
Following the August 2019 interview, his name appeared in the commission’s recommendation list. However, when the Himachal government issued appointment letters in September 2019, Kumar’s name was missing.
It was only after he filed a Right to Information (RTI) application that he learned the reason: his 90 percent disability exceeded the prescribed cap.
Kumar challenged the decision before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, arguing that the upper limit violated the RPwD Act. However, his plea was rejected in September 2020.
He subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which has now set aside the high court’s ruling.
Notably, the bench observed that Kumar had not only cleared the selection process but had secured the highest position among candidates in the persons with disabilities category, further undermining the state’s claim of unsuitability.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Why SIR is an exclusionary exercise for Persons with Disabilities